Collective regret versus collective guilt: Different emotional reactions to historical atrocities

A distinction between guilt and regret in reactions to in‐group atrocities is proposed. Four studies (total N = 1249) support the notion that guilt and regret are distinct emotional reactions. Whereas guilt is a self‐focused, aversive emotional reaction following from appraisals of responsibility and associated with the intention to make amends, regret follows from an empathic victim perspective, is less aversive, and is more strongly associated with positive attitudes towards the victim groups and the intention to engage in intergroup contact. These findings suggest that less aversive emotions like regret are more likely to improve intergroup attitudes after a common history of conflict, but the aversive experience of guilt might be more potent in motivating reparations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Nuestra culpa: collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing

Three studies examined the hypothesis that collective guilt and shame have different consequences for reparation. In 2 longitudinal studies, the ingroup was nonindigenous Chileans (Study 1: N = 124/120, lag = 8 weeks; Study 2: N = 247/137, lag = 6 months), and the outgroup was Chile's largest indigenous group, the Mapuche. In both studies, it was found that collective guilt predicted reparation attitudes longitudinally. Collective shame had only cross-sectional associations with reparation and no direct longitudinal effects. In Study 2, collective shame moderated the longitudinal effects of collective guilt such that the effects of guilt were stronger for low-shame respondents. In Study 3 (N = 193 nonindigenous Chileans), the cross-sectional relationships among guilt, shame, and reparation attitudes were replicated. The relationship between shame and reparation attitudes was mediated by a desire to improve the ingroup's reputation.     

Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: the impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes

Among members of privileged groups, social inequality is often thought of in terms of the disadvantages associated with outgroup membership. Yet inequality also can be validly framed in terms of ingroup privilege. These different framings have important psychological and social implications. In Experiment 1 (N = 110), White American participants assessed 24 statements about racial inequality framed as either White privileges or Black disadvantages. In Experiment 2 (N = 122), White participants generated examples of White privileges or Black disadvantages. In both experiments, a White privilege framing resulted in greater collective guilt and lower racism compared to a Black disadvantage framing. Collective guilt mediated the manipulation's effect on racism. In addition, in Experiment 2, a White privilege framing decreased White racial identification compared to a Black disadvantage framing. These findings suggest that representing inequality in terms of outgroup disadvantage allows privileged group members to avoid the negative psychological implications of inequality and supports prejudicial attitudes.     

Context matters: Explicit and implicit reminders of ingroup privilege increase collective guilt among foreigners in a developing country

We test three ways context matters in the study of intergroup inequality: where participants are approached, who interacts with participants, and how researchers ask participants questions. Regarding how, we replicate a finding that framing intergroup inequality as outgroup disadvantage rather than ingroup privilege reduces collective guilt in a novel context. Regarding where, we go beyond the laboratory to test foreigners in Nepal—a country where inequality is highly salient. Regarding who, we had participants approached by an ingroup (foreign) experimenter or an outgroup (Nepalese) experimenter. We found an outgroup disadvantage framing reduced collective guilt relative to ingroup privilege framing, but only when delivered by an ingroup member. This highlights the importance of taking where, who, and how into account to fully understand the contextual nature of intergroup emotion.     

Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action

Three studies examined non-Aboriginal Australians' guilt and anger about their ingroup's advantage over structurally disadvantaged Aborigines. Study 1 showed that participants who perceived their ingroup as relatively advantaged perceived this inequality as unfair and felt guilt and anger about it. Anger, and to a lesser degree guilt, predicted the willingness to engage in political action regarding ingroup advantage. Study 2 showed both guilt and anger to be relatively self-focused because both were associated with appraising the ingroup's (rather than the government's) discrimination as responsible for ingroup advantage. Study 3 examined on participants especially willing to engage in political action to bring about systemic compensation to Aborigines. Anger about ingroup advantage was a potent predictor. Although guilt was associated with the abstract goal of systemic compensation, guilt did not explain willingness for political action. Results underline the importance of examining specific group-based emotions in intergroup relations.     

Nostalgia for America's past can buffer collective guilt

This research examined when, and for whom, American collective nostalgia can relieve feelings of collective guilt. In the Pilot Study, path analyses revealed that national glorification is associated with collective nostalgia, and collective nostalgia is associated with lower collective guilt. Our experimental studies test the role of these variables in determining responses to the elevated salience of past ingroup harm doing. Collective nostalgia was associated with lower collective guilt especially after reminders of America's harm doing in Study 1 . In Study 2 we predicted and showed that reminders of American harm doing would evoke spontaneous collective nostalgia for participants high in national glorification. The remaining studies tested the hypothesis that collective nostalgia serves to buffer collective guilt. Collective guilt was lower after reminders of past harm doing for participants who engaged in collective nostalgia ( Study 3 ), and this was especially pronounced for participants high in national glorification ( Study 4 ).     

Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness

The authors examined how categorization influences victimized group members' responses to contemporary members of a historical perpetrator group. Specifically, the authors tested whether increasing category inclusiveness--from the intergroup level to the maximally inclusive human level--leads to greater forgiveness of a historical perpetrator group and decreased collective guilt assignment for its harmdoing. Among Jewish North Americans (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) and Native Canadians (Experiment 3) human-level categorization resulted in more positive responses toward Germans and White Canadians, respectively, by decreasing the uniqueness of their past harmful actions toward the in-group. Increasing the inclusiveness of categorization led to greater forgiveness and lessened expectations that former out-group members should experience collective guilt compared with when categorization was at the intergroup level. Discussion focuses on obstacles that are likely to be encountered on the road to reconciliation between groups that have a history of conflictual relations.     

The role of lay beliefs about group transgressions in acceptance of responsibility for ingroup harm-doing

Denial of responsibility by perpetrator groups is the most common response to group-based transgressions. Refusal to acknowledge responsibility has dire consequences for intergroup relations. In this research we assessed whether shifting lay beliefs about group-based transgressions in general influences acceptance of responsibility for a specific ingroup transgression. In two experimental studies we manipulated lay beliefs about group transgressions as reflecting either a group's stable character (i.e., a global defect construal) or a specific characteristic (i.e., a specific defect construal). Specific defect construals (compared to global defect construals) increased acceptance of ingroup responsibility by increasing group malleability beliefs, but reduced acceptance of ingroup responsibility by reducing the ingroup's perceived moral failure. These effects were moderated by ingroup superiority in Study 1, but not Study 2. We draw implications for our understanding of mechanisms of denial of responsibility, identity threat, and coping with this threat.     

Forgive them for I have sinned: The relationship between guilt and forgiveness of others' transgressions

We propose that guilt leads to forgiveness of others' transgressions. In Study 1, people prone to experience guilt (but not shame) were also prone to forgive others for past misdeeds. In Study 2, we manipulated harm‐ and inequity‐based guilt; both increased forgiveness of others' transgressions. Further, the effect of guilt on forgiveness was mediated by identification with the transgressor. In Study 3, we replicated the guilt–forgiveness relationship and examined three other plausible mediators: capability for similar wrongdoing, empathic understanding, and general identification; only identification with the transgressor satisfied the criteria for mediation. In Study 4, we induced guilt by asking participants to harm a friend or stranger. Guilt induced by harming a friend led to greater forgiveness of third‐party transgressors, and again, identification with the transgressor mediated the effect. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding how the prosocial effects of guilt extend beyond the boundaries of a single interpersonal relationship.     

The role of dual categorization and relative ingroup prototypicality in reparations to a minority group: An examination of empathy and collective guilt as mediators

In the current study, we investigate factors that facilitate or otherwise obstruct reparations of a perpetrating group (i.e. Muslims) to a victim group (i.e. Christians). The study (N = 200) reveals that among Muslim participants, the role of dual Abrahamic categorization in positively predicting reparation attitude towards Christians was mediated by the first group's prosocial emotions of empathy and collective guilt towards the latter group. In addition, relative Muslim prototypicality negatively predicted dual Abrahamic categorization and each of the two prosocial emotions. Empathy and collective guilt in turn mediated the role of relative ingroup prototypicality in negatively predicting reparation attitude. Moreover, as hypothesized, we found that the roles of empathy and collective guilt in predicting reparation intention, as manifested in participants' willingness to engage in collective action on behalf of the victim group, were not significant on their own, but were mediated by reparation attitude. These findings shed light on the importance of the relationship between the perpetrating group's shared identity with the victim group, reduced ingroup focus and its support for making reparations to the victim group. Theoretical implications, study limitations and practical strategies highlighting how to decrease relative Muslim prototypicality are discussed.     

Implicit ingroup metafavoritism: subtle preference for ingroup members displaying ingroup bias

The current article investigated how individuals evaluate ingroup members displaying either ingroup bias or egalitarian intergroup behaviors. The hypotheses predicted that on explicit responses a preference for the egalitarian ingroup member would emerge; in contrast, on more spontaneous and uncontrolled responses, a preference for the ingroup favoritist would result. Across four studies these hypotheses were confirmed for both minimal groups (Studies 1 and 2) and ethnic groups (Studies 3 and 4). Despite a verbal preference for those who behaved in an egalitarian way, an implicit ingroup metafavoritism was found. Overall, results indicated the presence of dual attitudes in the perception of ingroup members and the strict interconnection between intergroup behaviors and intragroup perception.     

The effects of independent and interdependent self-construals on reactions to transgressions: distinguishing between guilt and shame

The self-conscious emotions of guilt and shame are commonly distinguished by the self-reflective processes that foster these emotions. Distinctions based on resulting behavioral reactions, however, have been questioned in recent studies highlighting the role of different self-motivations. The current work draws on the self-construal literature to further clarify the antecedents and consequences of guilt and shame. We hypothesized that conceptualizing the self as independent from (vs. interdependent with) others fosters behavior-related (vs. self-related) cognitions typically associated with guilt (vs. shame). Additionally, we predicted that the deleterious consequences of shame for externalizing blame are more characteristic of independent (vs. interdependent) selves. These hypotheses were supported across two studies that measured (Study 1) and primed (Study 2) self-construals. Overall, our results suggest that the cognitive reactions associated with guilt and shame are differently encouraged by independent and interdependent self-construals.     

Disappointment expression evokes collective guilt and collective action in intergroup conflict: the moderating role of legitimacy perceptions

Research on intergroup emotions has largely focused on the experience of emotions and surprisingly little attention has been given to the expression of emotions. Drawing on the social-functional approach to emotions, we argue that in the context of intergroup conflicts, outgroup members’ expression of disappointment with one’s ingroup induces the complementary emotion of collective guilt and correspondingly a collective action protesting ingroup actions against the outgroup. In Study 1 conducted immediately after the 2014 Gaza war, Jewish-Israeli participants received information about outgroup’s (Palestinians) expression of emotions (disappointment, fear, or none). As predicted, outgroup’s expression of disappointment increased collective guilt and willingness to participate in collective action, but only among those who saw the intergroup situation as illegitimate. Moreover, collective guilt mediated the relationship between disappointment expression and collective action, moderated, again, by legitimacy perception. In Study 2, we replicated these results in the context of racial tension between Black and White Americans in the US. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of the findings.     

Shame and guilt as behaviour regulators: Relationships with bullying,victimization and prosocial behaviour

This study aimed at investigating intentional and non‐intentional situations eliciting shame and guilt in relation to children's involvement in bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour. We used the contextual model designed by Olthof, Schouten, Kuiper, Stegge, and Jennekens‐Schinkel (2000) according to which certain situations elicit more shame than guilt (‘shame‐only’, SO), whereas others elicit both guilt and shame (‘shame‐and‐guilt’, SAG). Besides these, four new scenarios were added (2 SO and 2 SAG) in which the protagonist was alternatively the perpetrator or the receiver of harm. Participants were 121 children aged 9–11, who filled in the self‐report Shame and Guilt Questionnaire, and a peer nomination survey to investigate the roles of bully, victim, prosocial and not involved. Results showed that in SAG situations, perpetrated‐harm situations elicited more guilt than neutral situations; while in SO situations, neutral situations elicited more shame than received‐harm situations. In SAG situations, prosocial children reported feeling more ashamed and guilty than bullies and not‐involved children, while in SO situations, victims scored higher on shame than not‐involved children. Results are discussed considering the contextual model employed and the relationship between emotions and behaviours.     

Body of guilt: Using embodied cognition to mitigate backlash to reminders of personal & ingroup wrongdoing

Research demonstrates that people are sensitive to information that portrays either themselves or their ingroups in a negative light. Indeed, confronting individuals with their own past misdeeds or those committed by important ingroups can result in victim-blaming and refusals to apologize or make amends. Studies suggest that one reason why people demonstrate these backlash effects is that they immediately blunt the experience of guilt when confronted with either their own or group misdeeds from the past. The more individuals actually experience guilt, however, the more likely they are to respond to information about past wrongdoing with prosocial behavior (e.g., apologies, reparations, etc.). The present research sought to examine how subtle inductions of guilt shape responses to personal and group wrongdoing; namely, by manipulating individuals' body postures. Consistent with predictions, results suggest that embodiment-induced guilt reduces negative backlash and increases prosocial interpersonal and intergroup intentions.     

The benefits of collective responsibility: How ingroup reputation concern motivates prosociality in intergroup contexts

Collective responsibility processes have been investigated from the perspectives of the outgroup (e.g., collective blame) and the ingroup (e.g., collective guilt). This article extends theory and research on collective responsibility with a third perspective, namely that of the individual actor whose behavior triggers the attribution of collective blame. Four experiments (n = 78, 118, 208 and 77, respectively) tested the hypotheses that collective responsibility processes influence the individual actors' appraisals, emotions and behavior. The possibility of collective blame for their individual action prompted more prosocial behavior among participants (Experiment 1). Participants also experienced more ingroup reputation concern and in turn more negative emotions (Experiment 2–4) for a past wrongdoing if it could reflect negatively on the ingroup in the eyes of outgroups. The increased negative emotions then motivated participants to improve the ingroup's image (Experiment 4). The effects were moderated by perceived ingroup entitativity, in that activating collective blame increased ingroup reputation concern and negative emotions only for ingroups perceived as highly entitative (Experiment 3).     

Competence,guilt, and victimization: Sex differences in attribution of causality in television dramas

Sex differences in attribution of causality are investigated in three types of television programs: prime-time family, violent, and daytime serial shows. Both frequency and type of causal statements were studied, using DeCharm's conceptualization of personal causation as origin-like (internal to the self) or pawn-like (external to the self). There were striking sex differences in violent programs, with males modeling more origin behavior and females modeling more pawn behavior. In soap operas there were no sex differences, but both origin and pawn ideas were expressed in terms of personal responsibility, with fewer references to more competent origin behaviors such as goal setting, planned decision making, or self-confidence. These findings have implications for differential socialization of competent coping skills for males and females.The authors would like to express appreciation to Katie Henry and Jennifer Mardoyan, who assisted with this research.     

Remembering past emotions: The role of current appraisals

This research assessed the stability of memory for emotions over time, and the relationship between current appraisals and memory for emotions. A week after the televised announcement of the verdict in the criminal trial of Mr Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson, participants were asked to describe their emotional reactions and their appraisals when they first learned of the verdict. After a delay of two months, and again after more than a year, participants recalled their initial emotional reactions and described their current appraisals of the verdict. After two months, the more participants' appraisals of Mr Simpson's innocence or guilt had changed, the less stable were their memories for the intensities of happiness and anger. After two months, and after more than a year, systematic changes in memory for happiness, anger, and surprise were found in directions consistent with current appraisals. These findings replicate and extend the findings of Levine (1997), and suggest that memories for emotional responses are partially reconstructed based on current appraisals of events.     

Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: the role of anger, shame, and guilt

The present research examined emotions as predictors of opposition to policies and actions of one's country that are perceived to be illegitimate. Two studies investigated the political implications of American (Study 1) and British (Study 2) citizens' anger, guilt, and shame responses to perceived harm caused by their countries' occupation of Iraq. In both studies, a manipulation of pervasive threat to the country's image increased participants' shame but not guilt. The emotions predicted political action intentions to advocate distinct opposition strategies. Shame predicted action intentions to advocate withdrawal from Iraq. Anger predicted action intentions to advocate compensation to Iraq, confrontation of agents responsible, and withdrawal from Iraq. Anger directed at different targets (ingroup, ingroup representative, and outgroup representative) predicted action intentions to support distinct strategies (Study 2). Guilt did not independently predict any political action intentions. Implications for the study of political action and emotions in intergroup contexts are discussed.     

Striving for difference: On the spontaneous preference for ingroup members who maximize ingroup positive distinctiveness

Previous research demonstrated that individuals spontaneously prefer ingroup members who display ingroup favoritism rather than egalitarian behaviors (Castelli, Tomelleri, & Zogmaister, 2008). In the current work, we explored what specific strategies toward ingroup favoritism are spontaneously preferred. Results from four studies showed that ingroup members who made it possible for the ingroup to achieve a positive intergroup differentiation were preferred as compared to ingroup members who maximized the absolute gain for the ingroup. Study 5 further demonstrated that in the search for positive distinctiveness people are sensitive to the ratio between the gains of the ingroup and outgroup. Study 6 ruled out a possible alternative explanation. Overall, the current findings indicate that group members who set the difference from an outgroup elicit the most positive spontaneous responses demonstrating that the search for a positive intergroup distinctiveness automatically affects intragroup perception. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.